The Red Handkerchief...

[richardnunweek]

Thanks Robert...

[Robert]

Welcome back Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys ..
I decided to return back to normal duties on Casebook...I have been absent too long, and really need to get my oar in once more, so much has happened in the past months..
This discussion on the Radio Programme, is fascinating, and somewhat irritating.
I heard many programmes on the subject of Jack on the radio, 'The other Victorians' was a well known series, and indeed excellent...
The show I have been on about since the dark days, was advertised twice in that weeks edition of The Radio Times,once on the front of the copy, and once to my knowledge, within its rear pages,it referred to 'The man that saw Jack', which was a reference to George Hutchinson...
The programme followed the basic case, with reference to upper class connections and then dealt with the very mysterious statement of the man Hutchinson..at the end of the broadcast..it featured [ apparently] a interview with the son of the witness, which I years later [ some 18] assumed was the man known as Reg Hutchinson, as he relayed the same account in The Ripper and the Royals', as I heard on the Radio,,,,I knew all about the £5 fee allegedly given to GH, not known to anyone in the media until 1992. so I had second knowledge from somewhere ..don't you think?.
I rejected the programme Bob Hinton referred to , because it made no reference to the interview...which I would assume..either meant it was the wrong airing. or was edited out....by some conspiracy angle..LOL.
Glad to be back,.with fresh attitudes ..after some 15 years on Casebook.,I needed to recharge my battery..
Regards Richard,

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Hello Stewart
It would appear that I owe you an apology and I wholeheartedly make it...
However, I do know from the various times we conversed in the Chatroom on here, Richard was very upset about the absence of evidence about "that" radio broadcast...needless to say he made no mention of the 01.06.72 programme at all.

Thank you for the gracious apology Dave, greatly appreciated. I was aware of Richard's ongoing disappointment with the non-discovery of the radio programme he alluded to. It's a pity that no broadcast fitting the bill has ever been found as he was so adamant about it.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Stewart

It would appear that I owe you an apology and I wholeheartedly make it...

However, I do know from the various times we conversed in the Chatroom on here, Richard was very upset about the absence of evidence about "that" radio broadcast...needless to say he made no mention of the 01.06.72 programme at all.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Little Research

...
Just a little in Dave's defense if I dare, Stewart. It wasn't immediately obvious from reading these last posts that Richard had been told of this radio programme already. The answers did come across as though everyone knew and no one had told Richard....and google, like most of our memories is not what it used to be! I don't want to presume that is what Dave meant but it did come across that way to me.

Also, the reason that I suggested 'a little research' before leaping into print is the fact that by merely using the search function on this very site you will, in minutes, locate the thread where Richard was told of this broadcast by Bob Hinton. I believe that Bob also offered to send him a copy of the script but he did not want it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Before going...

Before going perhaps I should add the following. In 1973 when Mich Raper was in touch with Jack Hammond about the publication of the script, Raper stated, "I do not think there is any need for a preface from me unless you particularly want one, so unless I hear to the contrary, I shall leave things entirely with you."

In the event Jack appears to have asked for a preface as one appears in the booklet. In this Raper writes, "The script which follows was found, in rehearsal, to be a quarter of an hour too long and had to be cut drastically before being recorded, though none of the main points were omitted or altered.
The broadcast had a mixed reception. Some listeners felt that if Clarence was innocent there was no need to rake up the old suspicions all over again."

As this broadcast was one of a series with a fixed time slot and was found to be too long and had to be pared down, I doubt that there would have been time to include any extraneous interviews at the end.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

Just a little in Dave's defense if I dare, Stewart. It wasn't immediately obvious from reading these last posts that Richard had been told of this radio programme already. The answers did come across as though everyone knew and no one had told Richard....and google, like most of our memories is not what it used to be! I don't want to presume that is what Dave meant but it did come across that way to me.

No, the point I was making was the fact that the Raper programme is very well known in Ripper circles and was not something that had only just been found which was the drift of the post. Anyway, I appear to have caused an upset and will resume my exile from the boards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Script

Hi Stewart,
Does the script include all components of the particular programme? You are referring to a dramatization, but is that the complete programme, or might there have been an interview segment or two that of course wouldn't be scripted, that may have been part of the entire programme?
Mike

I did not listen to the programme, as I stated. The script is what I have quoted from and it is the whole of Mich Raper's dramatization. Might there have been an unscripted interview segment at the end? I don't know as I didn't listen to it. However, Richard seems to have rejected the idea that this programme was the one he listened to and has categorically stated, more than once, that the programme he listened to was called 'The Man That Saw Jack'. That certainly was not the title of Raper's programme.

[Debra A]

I'm really not sure what you are running on about here..."not knowing that the programme he thought he'd listened to, was not apocryphal after all, but well known to a small group of Ripperologists...
And that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself..."

My post was responding to yours stating that the Richard may well have been vindicated by the finding of the Radio 4 transmission of The Other Victorians which included the piece 'Who Was Jack the Ripper' broadcast at 8 p.m. on 1 June 1972. This was heralded as a 'new' find which, as I pointed out, it was not. This programme is not 'well known to a small group of Ripperologists', it's well known to many Ripperologists and was pointed out to Richard in a debate on these boards, back in March 2008, by Bob Hinton.

Also very many people own a copy of The Jack the Ripper Handbook A Reader's Companion by Ross Strachan published in 1999. On page 14 is the following entry 'RAPER Michell Who Was Jack the Ripper? The Tabaret Press, London, 1974, booklet. Limited to 100 copies. A resume of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 and an investigation of a recent suspect. The script of this publication was broadcast on BBC Radio Four on 1st June 1972.'

I fail to see how it can be said that this was well known to only 'a small group of Ripperologists' nor how 'that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself.' Perhaps you should do a little research yourself before leaping into print. The programme, actually, does not conform to Richard's description of the programme he heard which he said bore the title 'The Man That Saw Jack'.

Just a little in Dave's defense if I dare, Stewart. It wasn't immediately obvious from reading these last posts that Richard had been told of this radio programme already. The answers did come across as though everyone knew and no one had told Richard....and google, like most of our memories is not what it used to be! I don't want to presume that is what Dave meant but it did come across that way to me.

[The Good Michael]

I
There is no interview with Reginald Hutchinson, nor reference to any such person.

Hi Stewart,

Does the script include all components of the particular programme? You are referring to a dramatization, but is that the complete programme, or might there have been an interview segment or two that of course wouldn't be scripted, that may have been part of the entire programme?

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Cast list

Thanks for the information on this broadcast, Stewart and Dave. Most appreciated.
...
...Does this Radio 4 transmission contain such an interview? Apparently not. In which case, can someone explain how Richard has been "vindicated"?

I have to confess to not listening to this show at the time it was broadcast in 1972. However, the cast list in the script booklet shows that the parts of Sir Charles Warren, Vigilante Speaker, Hutcheson [sic] and Tutor of Clarence were read by William Eedle.

The show was written by Michell Raper and was a factual dramatization which, obviously, contained some invention. A 'Narrator' (Raper himself) linked all the players with his comments and interpretations. Hutchinson's lines ran as follows (for those interested in detail) - HUTCHESON: "The man put his hand on her shoulder and said something to her which I did not hear. Then they both burst out laughing He put his hand on her again and they both walked slowly towards me. As they came by, his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on and this was drawn down over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face and he turned and looked at me very sternly. My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed but I had no suspicion that the man was the murderer. He was about five foot six in height and about 34 or 35 years old with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrokhan [sic], a white collar with black neck tie in which was fixed a horse shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons and a gold watch-chain with a red stone hanging from it. He looked like a foreigner."

There is no interview with Reginald Hutchinson, nor reference to any such person.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

Thanks for the input Robert and Ben.

The point I was trying to make was that the 'discovery' of the Raper radio transmission was not new at all, and it was pointed out to Robert many years ago.

[Ben]

Thanks for the information on this broadcast, Stewart and Dave. Most appreciated.

I'm not sure who "the posters who claimed Richard's account was apocryphal" refers to. Richard often made reference to a "radio show" from the 1970s which purportedly featured an interview with Reginald Hutchinson (of "Ripper and the Royals" notoriety). Does this Radio 4 transmission contain such an interview? Apparently not. In which case, can someone explain how Richard has been "vindicated"?

[Robert]

Richard dismissed the show as being not the one he was trying to find :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4219